By late 2025 DAO1 had a public relations problem it could measure. Its token was falling, its website traffic was collapsing, and five financial regulators had issued warnings about it. Its response, as reported in December 2025, was to inform investors that it operated a zero tolerance policy toward participants who spread negativity, and to encourage them to post favourably about the project on CoinMarketCap and other social platforms.
CoinMarketCap’s community rules prohibit precisely that. The published rules state that no user should manipulate or provide incorrect information to other users, spread rumours about a particular project or coin, or use community power to cheerlead or bash any project and try to drive the opinion of a certain coin or project. They also state that users shall not create multiple accounts to post similar messages or opinions.
Managing the Audience Instead of the Product
The instruction is revealing because of what it treats as the problem. An investment operation facing a falling token price and regulatory warnings has two categories of response available. It can address the underlying business, or it can address what people are saying about it. Asking investors to seed positive sentiment on the platform where prospective buyers check a token’s standing is the second kind of response, and it is aimed at the people who have not invested yet.
The zero tolerance framing applies pressure in the other direction, to existing investors. A participant who has money in the scheme and is told that negativity will not be tolerated has a clear incentive to keep concerns private, including from other investors who might otherwise learn something useful from them.
This Is Not the First Time Criticism Has Been a Target
The pattern has an earlier precedent in the same corporate family. When California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation issued its desist and refrain order against GSPartners in November 2023, its announcement recorded that the company threatened and initiated litigation to suppress criticism of its investments. That was a finding by a state financial regulator, not an inference.
Between the two, the approach to public scrutiny is consistent across roughly two years and two brands: make criticism costly, and manufacture the alternative.
What the Numbers Looked Like at the Time
The astroturfing request came as the underlying figures deteriorated. APTM reached an all time low of 39.2 cents on November 26, 2025. Apertum had lost 53 percent of its value since listing in May. DAO1 website traffic fell roughly 40 percent month on month, down to about 22,700 visits in November 2025. By December 2025 the operation had received five official fraud or licensing warnings from national regulators, with a sixth to come from South Africa in September 2026.
What the Numbers Looked Like Behind the Request
The astroturfing instruction arrived as the underlying figures deteriorated sharply. APTM reached an all time low of 39.2 cents on 26 November 2025, having lost 53 percent of its value since listing in May. By the time DAO1 announced it was terminating its trading bot scheme in June 2026, the token was down 84.56 percent year on year.
Website traffic fell roughly 40 percent month on month to about 22,700 visits in November 2025. By December the operation had drawn five official warnings from national regulators, with South Africa’s FSCA adding a sixth in September 2026.
Why Sentiment Management Is a Recognised Warning Sign
Investor protection bodies treat pressure on investors not to discuss an investment as a marker in its own right. A legitimate operation has no reason to care what its customers say publicly, because its performance is verifiable from statements and audited records. An operation whose returns cannot be independently confirmed depends on the confidence of the people already inside it, and confidence is damaged by discussion.
The structure regulators describe in these cases relies on new money arriving faster than existing investors withdraw. Anything that slows recruitment threatens the whole arrangement, which is why a falling token price and a run of negative commentary are treated as an emergency requiring a communications response rather than an operational one.
The Earlier Version of the Same Instinct
This is not the first time criticism has been treated as the problem to solve. When California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation issued its desist and refrain order against GSPartners in November 2023, its announcement recorded that the company threatened and initiated litigation to suppress criticism of its investments. That was a finding by a state financial regulator, not an inference drawn by a commentator.
Between the two episodes the approach to public scrutiny is consistent across roughly two years and two brands. Make criticism expensive where you can, and manufacture the alternative where you cannot. The warning signs regulators publish for retail investors include exactly this: pressure not to discuss an investment, and promotional material that appears organic but is solicited.
For an investor, the practical test is simple. An operation confident in its numbers has no reason to recruit its own customers as a public relations force.
Conclusion
With the token at a record low and traffic down 40 percent in a month, DAO1 did not fix the product. It went after the commentary. Investors were told negativity would not be tolerated and asked to post praise on CoinMarketCap, whose rules prohibit precisely that. The message runs in two directions at once: silence the people already inside, and manufacture reassurance for the people not yet in. Two years earlier California had found the predecessor operation used litigation against its critics. Same instinct, cheaper method. The product changed names. The treatment of anyone who talks about it did not.
